On Mar 26, 2007, at 4:53 PM, Paul Brown wrote:
2) I can't think of a (good) reason that code layout choices
(separation of interface and implementation codebases) or artificial
constraints (maven's predilections about directories) should influence
artifacts. These things are also confusing -- do I need both the
ifact and impl JARs? (Ultimately, if it's not for public use, then it
should be package private anyway...)
Yep! It's a pretty awful abuse of jar files. It's not like cxf-api is
a spec or that it'll have more than one impl that could be dropped
in. It's pretty pretentious to split it up that way. If the intent is
to distinguish between public and private APIs, then this is a very
poor way of doing so, for the following reasons:
- IDEs will have both in the classpath, how often does anyone check
what jar a dependency comes from, if it's been satisfied somehow?
- It ignores the fact that packages exist for exactly this reason.
- Nobody else does it this way
- While the build classpath is sometimes bigger than the runtime one,
this particular split seems to feel that sometimes it's the opposite
(1 jar for build and 2 for deployment), which is fairly ....uhm
(can't think of a polite word)... as no other framework makes this
odd assumption.
You're far better served by moving the impl into a 'internal' or
'impl' package. That way a glance at the imports tells you everything
you need to know.
